Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution?
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 23 of 73 (8097)
04-02-2002 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Cobra_snake
03-30-2002 11:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Don't worry, to those of us who have read a bit of anti-creation literature, this statement is hardly offensive. Most of the "proffessional" evolutionists are actually the best at spewing forth childish ad hominem.
Oh really? Care to rephrase that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-30-2002 11:57 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-02-2002 11:08 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 41 of 73 (8308)
04-08-2002 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Cobra_snake
04-07-2002 9:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"I agree that Behe's response has considerable truth to it. The question is: When quotes are taken out of context, are the being used to be a blow to evolutionary theory in general, or are they being used mearly to illustrate that there is scientific debate over the details of evolutionary theory."
I believe that such quotes are used in order to display to the everyday person that there is a considerable debate even among the evolutionary community. I don't think the everyday Joe is aware that there is such an intense debate about evolution.
I think that this is why Creationists and IDers use such quotes. Unfortunately, many evolutionists interpret this as misquotation and quoting out of context.

Hi Cobra: I think you've literally hit the nail on the head, here. This is the principal problem with creationists using quotations from actual researchers and scientists on evolution. Because the political agenda of the main creationist organizations and writers is to cast doubt on evolutionary sciences, their use of selected quotations is at the very least disengenuous.
I fully concur that there are numerous marvelous debates among scientists concerning the mechanisms of evolution (the "how" as it were). Some even become fairly acrimonious (no one is more passionate than a scientist arguing about his pet theory). Creationists typically use these arguments and disagreements as alleged evidence that evolution is false or that it is something fundamentally flawed. After all, if there isn't 100% concordance among practitioners, how can it be True (TM)?
The contention that everybody has to be in complete agreement or the idea is false, even among people who should know better like Dr. Behe, is a dangerous fallacy. The creationist naive claim that they are merely "display[ing] to the everyday person that there is a considerable debate even among the evolutionary community" is highly misleading. Not because the scientists in question didn't say the words, but rather because in many (if not most) cases, the creationist using the quote deliberately neglects to provide the context or any explanatory parenthetical information. In other words, how can the "everyday Joe" be expected to recognize or understand the intent of the quoted scientist without further clarification?
I have been involved with this debate for a while now - both online and in print - and never, not once, have I seen one of these quotes explained by the quoter, nor have I ever seen any context provided. Invariably, if any comment is provided at all, it ultimately boils down to the non-sequitur, "See, even evolutionary scientists don't believe in evolution." Picture it this way: if all creationists were trying to do was to show there was disagreement over certain aspects of evolutionary theory, why not simply say so? Or even provide an explanation of what those disagreements consist of? Instead, they selectively use quotations without context (or even heavily modified quotations) in the intellectual equivalent of "Nana nana boo boo." This is supposed to inform the layman? Why resort to intellectual dishonesty? What point are they trying to make?
On a final note, let's look briefly at why Dr. Coyne was so upset. Put yourself in his place for a moment. Here we have a man who's devoted his entire adult life to the study of one aspect of evolution. He's confronted by an out-of-context quotation of his own words that seems to support the premise of a book written as a direct refutation of everything he's spent his life doing. Wouldn't you be just the least bit upset? Dr. Behe's reply is, at the very least, disengenuous and doesn't at all address the lack of referants that Dr. Coyne complains about. It would seem to me that intellectual honesty would at minimum compel Dr. Behe, when confronted by the author, either to retract the statement, apologize in writing, or at the very least address Dr. Coyne's concerns in any future writing. He has NOT done so, nor given any indication of so doing in the future.
Bottom line: There have been so many scientists so misquoted so often that the credibility of ANY quote from creationists - legitimate or not, and for whatever ostensible reason - is now suspect. Sorry, but there it is. Creationists are hoist on their own petard. I, for one, find it impossible to accept these quotations anymore without fully investigating the original sources. And I'm relatively familiar with a lot of the science - including the disagreements. How do you think the "everyday Joe" will interpret them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-07-2002 9:54 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 2:39 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 45 of 73 (8371)
04-09-2002 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Cobra_snake
04-08-2002 2:39 PM


Hey Cobra:
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I don't think that the quotation problem is due to the political agenda of creation scientists. I really don't think that they are attempting to be dishonest. I simply think it is a large misunderstanding.
I understand your point. I agree that some advocates of creationism do believe as you state. You personally, for example, are someone from whom I have never seen this tactic. However, and this is a crucial issue for the entire evolution/creation debate, the stated goal of ALL the main creationism organizations is to forward a political agenda. That agenda being the legally enforced teaching of creationism in publically funded schools.
It may be one of the downsides to living in a free and open society such as the US where the "people's voice" can have a significant impact on public policy. Consider the target audience of most creationist writings and activism. The main creationist organizations aren't trying to convince practicing scientists that their "theories" are scientifically valid. They are, in fact, attempting to convince the lay public - not that they are correct, but that evolution is wrong - to force an argumentum ad populum to sway policy makers to promote their agenda. Look at the current debate over science curriculum in Ohio, for instance. What tactics are being used? Presentation of scientific evidence for creationism? Nope: presentation of misleading quotations, out-of-context scientific papers, etc, with the sole and unequivocal objective of convincing the state board that evolution has problems. Apparently, any tactic is valid as long as it forwards the agenda.
quote:
First of all, creation scientists generally quote authorities that are casting doubt upon NEO-DARWINIAN theory, which is the primary textbook orthodoxy as of right now. I don't think this is dishonest at all. For example, Lynn Margulis may very well believe in the "Gaia theory", however, these personal beliefs are of little importance. Creation scientists are trying to show that the current textbook orthodoxy is incorrect, or at least under serious debate.
Again, I have to ask why the creationists are trying to poke holes in scientific theories using scientists whose work does nothing but support those theories. Lynn Margulis gets a lot of flack, primarily for her social and political ideas. And she does have an alternative theory for the relative importance of the mechanisms of natural selection, for ex. Her scientific work, on the other hand, adamantly supports evolution. Read any of her published works. Serial endosymbiosis theory is an elegant (but not the only) explanation for the evolution of eukaryotes from more primitive progenotes (bacteria, in point of fact). In short, her work provides key insights into evolution - and macroevolution to boot! She disagrees with neo-Darwinian synthesis, but so what? This is a scientific debate over the "how", not the "what". Would you be able to gain that insight into the debate if you only heard the quote someone posted in this forum? No? Gee, I wonder why not? Could it be lack of context? To be quoted by creationists as somehow lending support to the idea that evolution is false and by implication that creationism should be taught as science ("alternative theory") instead is utter nonsense. Since I don't believe the creationist organizations who use quotes such as the one from Dr. Margulis as one of their tactics are staffed by morons, I can only conclude they are deliberately obfuscating the issue in order to convince the uninitiated. In short, they are deliberately "lying by ommission".
quote:
Obviously, anyone who quotes an evolutionists in order to convey the idea that they don't believe in evolution- that is dishonest. However, in my experience, almost every time a creationist quotes an authority, they are sure to indicate that authorities stance on the creation/evolution issue. So, if a quoted authority is an evolutionist, and they say something like "the neo-Darwinian view has little scientific support", they are obviously going to have some sort of other explanation.
In my experience, on the other hand, almost every time a creationist either online or in print quotes some authority, the only qualifier they add is "an evolutionist said...". If I personally read a quote from a bishop or other religious figure that said "the biblic view has very little doctrinal support", with no other explanation or context, I would be hesitant to accept it at face value simply because almost by definition the statement is illogical. Why in the world would a bishop say something like that? I would be even more suspicious if the quote was provided by a secular humanist organization. Why can't you see the exact same problem with a creationist quoting an evolutionist?
quote:
Stephen Jay Gould is often enfuriated by creationist quotations of him. This is because he has given some frank admissions of the large gaps in the fossil record. Of course, he has a substitute theory- punctuated equilibrium. But every time I've read creationist literature, the author makes sure to include the fact that Gould believes in punctuated equilibrium, and they generally include a critique of that theory. The overall effect is very persuasive, because here we have an expert admitting huge gaps in the fossil record, followed by a critique of the theory in which this expert thinks solves the problem. I don't see any problem with this technique.
This is another specific area where quoting a scientist without providing explanatory information is grossly misleading - and in fact grossly misrepresents what Gould is saying. Even you have misunderstood Gould's point - and you're one of the more "open" creationists I've debated with at least the beginnings of a good background in the subject. For reference: what Gould was talking about in his famous quote was the apparent lack of microtransistions within lineages. He goes on to say, in the continuation of the exact same quote, that the fossil record shows outstanding macroevolutionary transitions. He is manifestly NOT saying microtransitions do not occur - simply that they occur so "rapidly" that they are not evident from fossils. PE takes this idea, adds to it the observation of stasis in certain lineages, and proposes a mechanism for how it occurs. He never - NOT ONCE IN HIS LIFE - ever proposed that evolution did not occur, or even that Darwinian evolution was not what was happening within the context of PE. He is against an older, strict Darwinian interpretation (i.e., the idea of strict gradualism), but he is NOT against the neo-Darwinian synthesis in any way, shape or form.
Now be honest: would you be able to even catch the glimmer of all that if all you had read was the single two-line quote creationists are constantly harping on?
quote:
I'm sure that there are creationists who are guilty of misquotation and quoting out of context. But I don't believe that this is the rule.
I'm afraid, my friend, that it IS the rule, rather than the exception. Think of all the creationist quotes you've read. How many of them actually provide even as little explanation as I gave in the above paragraph?
quote:
Quetzal: "In other words, how can the "everyday Joe" be expected to recognize or understand the intent of the quoted scientist without further clarification?"
I agree with you that the scientists should generally provide details as to the authors beliefs concerning the issue. However, sometimes the quote is accompanied with the scientist's views on the subject. Once again, though, the vast majority of quotes are used to show that many scientists (or at least some) disagree with the mainstream view of evolution.
I have never seen a creationist - ever - provide any context as you state. I agree with you on the purpose of creationist quotes. There are many scientists who disagree with one or another aspect of evolutionary biology. However, I have tried to show you that absent the why of the disagreement and what implications the disagreement has, the use of carefully selected quotations is highly misleading and often down-right dishonest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 2:39 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 65 of 73 (8630)
04-16-2002 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by joz
04-16-2002 9:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; (emphasis added)
Okay, joz. Since you saw fit to repost Gen 1, maybe you could explain the bolded portions. Is it a mis-translation? If not, who's God talking to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by joz, posted 04-16-2002 9:30 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by joz, posted 04-16-2002 9:51 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024